Hell, No Not Swearing

Not sure if I used the word ‘hell’ in a title before or not so I thought I would add a few more to make sure. I am convinced now that the owner of formerly fundie has lost it as he drags out a few verses to say that hell, the eternal fire and eternal torment is not real.


I think we need to establish a sub-label for all alternative believers and have them use that instead of the term ‘Christian.’  The title of the new sub-category would be, those who call God a liar’ for that is exactly what they are doing when they say things like the content in that post. just be honest and say that God lies or lied and that he is worse than Satan. Please stop the masquerade of calling yourselves Christian and pretending you are following God for you are neither.

In that post that owner quotes from 25 bible verses, some completely others partially, and he provides a little commentary underneath each but that commentary and use of those verses only demonstrate the complete lack of understanding of the Bible by those who do not believe God anymore. His use also shows that he is not following the HS to the truth but applies his own interpretation to God’s words because his own rendition of the verses meanings tell him what he wants to hear.

What is sad is illustrated by his closing words:

So there you go folks– the testimony of the whole of scripture does not testify to hell as a place where you are alive and tortured for all eternity. Instead, from the beginning to the end of scripture we are warned that refusing to be reconciled to God– the author and sustainer of life– results in a natural outcome: the finality of death which is the ultimate destruction.

Why is it sad? Because he does not tell the complete truth about what the Bible says about hell. He left quite a few verses out which contradict his position and I will place them below so you can compare his list with the ones he omitted and see that he is the one who is lying not God. All quotes come from the NASB.

But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell. (MT. 5:22)

If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. (MT. 5:29)

If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. (MT. 5:30)

Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (MT. 10:28)

If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell. (MT. 18:9)

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. (MT. 23:19)

You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell? (MT. 23:33)

If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, (MK. 9:43)

If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into hell, (MK. 9:45)

If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, (MK. 9:47)

But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him! (LK. 12:5)

And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell.(James 3:6)

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; (2 Pet. 2:4)

Quite a difference between the two lists. The one by the owner of formerly fundie is very selective and avoids those which actually mention hell as being a real place. His post calls Jesus and the biblical authors liars and that is not a smart thing to do.

I would encourage you to just read the Bible– and read it without the lens of hell that you grew up with. If you read it without those lenses to distort what you see, you’ll find that eternal hell isn’t what the Bible warns us about– it warns us about a second death.

Here you have him encouraging people to distort their bible reading and cherry pick the passages they will accept and use as teaching from the Bible. But that is the alternative believers’ way.  They want people to follow their blind way of looking at scripture instead of following the HS to the truth. Why? Because they do not want to have to deal with the fact that they are headed to hell for real. They want to hang on to false hope instead of being honest with themselves.

Hell is real and some times it is called the lake of fire. Here is what the owner of that other website did with the verse on the lake of fire

Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death…”

Now here is the full verse in context

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

God isn’t the one who is lying or withholding information. The alternative believers are doing that. The lake of fire is a real place and it is a continuing punishment.

I will end this with the words of David who also stated that hell was a real place:

If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. (Ps. 139:8)

Much To Talk About- 94

#1. Listening To Unbelievers http://www.christianpost.com/news/newsboys-co-founder-im-now-an-atheist-richard-dawkins-had-an-influence-on-my-spiritual-journey-133022/

He started to become interested in cosmology in 1992. He became intrigued by the works of famous cosmologists and evolutionists like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Lawrence Krauss and others

“I learned so much and was blown away by all the amazing scientific discoveries,” Perdikis said.

Is never a smart thing to do. God did not put that prohibition in the Bible because he wanted to be mean or controlling. He gave us that and other restrictions so that we would know what to do to be saved from destruction. Love is often defined in a very abstract, touchy-feely type of way and many people misunderstand what real love is.

I had one person stop writing me because I expanded upon her version of the term love.  Real love provides fair and just limits because the person implementing the instructions knows what is going to happen if those restrictions are not there. Love does not embrace anarchy or total freedom, but provides clear instruction and rules so that people can live life right.

When you listen to unbelievers, they are giving you a message that does not include love because they are telling you your faith is wrong, your God lied to you and that deceived people have the truth. They may equate love with freedom but true love tells you that true freedom means you have to make sacrifices and that you cannot do everything you want. The secular world does not understand love, they do not understand God, the Bible nor do they know what the truth is. Believers need to obey God and stop listening to those who are anti-God. As you can see, the results are not leading you to a deeper faith in Jesus.

#2. Do We Throw Out The Baby With The Bathwaterhttp://www.christianpost.com/news/boy-scouts-perversion-files-reveals-sordid-history-of-sexual-abuse-in-organization-says-lawyer-133236/

The attorney, Tim Hale, made the statement in California Monday at a civil trial on behalf of the victim who is now 20, according to the Associated Press. The victim, who was not identified by the AP, but listed in court documents, is suing the Boy Scout of America as well as a local scouting council for punitive damages for the 2007 abuse. He alleges the Boys Scouts were negligent because they failed to warn and train parents and volunteers about sex abuse.

The title may seem strange to you but do we dismantle the Boy Scouts just because some perverted people were able to infiltrate the organization and sin against others? The first thing people need to realize is that sin is going to happen everywhere and that it is sometimes beyond the ability of some groups to police their members because the act is done long before anyone finds out about it.

Even if you clean out the problem people, there is no guarantee that more will not be able to find some way into the organization. Case in point, in this country we had a problem two years in a row, where a couple of teachers went to Thailand then were arrested as pedophiles. Those incidents set off a fire storm here which ended up in Korea requiring criminal Record Checks for all western teachers. They thought that this would end the problem.

Sadly to say, most pedophiles do not have criminal records and the problem continued. Is the Korean government at fault because of the presence of those type of people? No. They can only do so much and those who want to pursue perverted behavior will find a way to do it regardless of the safety measures implemented. The bold worlds bother me because it is an unrealistic demand and accusation. For one thing, parents should have taught and warned their own children first. Then what training is to be used? No amount of training is going to be enough because if someone wants to commit a crime bad enough then they will do it and no amount of training can stop it.

How do we know this? Because the police forces of the world are well-trained in stopping crime and yet, crime abounds. Even with all the warnings and training done in the public schools, criminals still find victims. Abuse is a spiritual problem, like any other crime and sin and it must be fought realistically with prayer and guidance from God.

#3. Not In the Biblehttp://www.christianpost.com/news/not-in-the-bible-shouts-anglican-priest-who-disrupts-ceremony-consecrating-first-ever-woman-bishop-in-church-of-england-133115/

A Church of England priest briefly disrupted the consecration ceremony for the first ever female bishop in the church after he shouted “not in the Bible.” The ceremony went on as planned, however, and the Rev. Libby Lane was ordained as the Bishop of Stockport in front of over 1,000 people.

“It is a remarkable thing that this happens to me, and people have been very supportive of me personally, but actually this is about a moment in the Church’s history,” Lane said, reflecting on the occasion.

I have to agree with that dissenting priest. If Christians do not follow God’s word, how can they expect unbelievers to join up and follow them? If you want fewer problems in the church, then you need to get back to obeying God’s word and get rid of those members who refuse to do so. The reason many members of the congregation complain about abuse, sexual violations and other sins is because even the leaders do not follow God or his instructions and the leaders were installed to lead the people to obedience not disobedience.

I am sorry women, but when it comes to God’s kingdom, there is no such thing as a glass ceiling. He sets the rules because he owns the church and he has a different role for you. Please humble yourselves and take that role so that Christ’s work will not be hampered by disobedience and sin.

#4. We Need To Be Carefulhttp://www.christianpost.com/news/gospel-artist-kirk-franklin-says-christianitys-subculture-made-him-question-if-god-was-even-real-133310/

Popular gospel musician Kirk Franklin is no fan of Christianity’s subculture and recently explained how it alienated him as he grew as a Christian and made him question “if God was even real.”

Franklin, who discussed his frustration in a blog post on Patheos Tuesday, explained that the Christian subculture made him feel like he didn’t belong when he was growing up and encouraged Christians feeling that way to keep loving God because fitting into the subculture isn’t what really matters to God.

At times I know how he feels and I know how hard it is to keep one’s faith when the worst offenders against you are those of your own faith.

“Through many days, weeks, and months of seeing Him come through in indescribable ways, I have found that it’s not my spiritual acrobatics or the newest churchy phrase that gets the church excited during the rise of the church organ and fast tempo drums. It’s the yanking and pulling and doubting and running and chasing and falling and questioning and crying and dancing and listening that’s important,” he said. “I have fallen in love with the lover of the universe; not the subculture of Christianity. And that’s OK.”

I usually call them the church or christian fad and I get tired of them. For me I prefer not to have a ‘worship team’ up front leading the singing. I just feel that fad has lived out its tenure and needs to be retired and it is not just because it lowers worship to entertainment but it can lead others to sin via jealousy, envy, or make them angry for being left off the ‘team.’

I would like to see the church stop playing its denominational games and get serious for God. Not just in their worship but in their daily lives as well. I want to see well-rounded and grounded spiritual teaching instead of distorted malnourished people with the wrong priorities and thinking wrecking havoc upon others.I would like to see church leaders stop pressing the people to change and make those changes in their own lives.

We need Christian people filled with solid doctrine for that will help defeat the temptations of evil.

Friend, whether or not you believe in Him, He believes in you. And if you don’t fit in with the church crowd, don’t know any Bible verses, are on your way to jail, just got out of jail, are tatted from your neck to your feet, have your nose pierced, or haven’t been to church since your homey got killed, you’re OK,” he added. “Man is not the standard, God is.”

Obviously there is more to that than what is printed there. We need to remember that it doesn’t matter who you are, how many tattoos you have, or whom you have victimized and so on, what matters is that you truly repent of your sins and accept Jesus as your savior. Then when these people do that, the church needs to open their arms and welcome them into the fold and teach them correctly.

#5. Unfair Labelinghttp://www.christianpost.com/news/alabama-chief-justice-roy-moore-defies-federal-court-on-gay-marriage-splc-files-ethics-complaint-133276/

A civil rights group that lists many conservative organizations as hate groups for opposing gay marriage has filed an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.

That group should realize that their opposition to people’s opposition can be labelled as a hate crime and they a hate group. Opposing sin or something else does not make you a hater, a hate group or even a person who discriminates. It makes you on the other side of the issue.The people who support same-sex marriage wants everyone on their side and that is just impossible. They do not want opposition nor do they want people to think for themselves. Unless that thinking leads to decisions that puts the thinker on their side of the issue.

I do not necessarily agree with Judge Moore’s rhetoric or position on this issue because he is suborning a rebellious attitude and in our opposition to an issue we need to be careful not to lead others to sin.

“As Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I will continue to recognize the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people

The key words are those in bold as that sentiment seems to be applied very selectively and prejudicially. Abraham declared that the government was for the people,, by the people and of the people but when you have so many groups of people disagreeing with each other how can we really know the true will of the people? Sometimes, like Cal. prop 8, the will of the people is very easy to determine because the majority voted for one conclusion. if the homosexual community lived democratically, they would have known to bide their time till the majority of wills were on their side and then hold another vote but they cannot do that.

They have decided to force their wills upon the majority and found the biggest stick they could to help them accomplish that desire. If you are going to appeal to the phrase, ‘the will of the people’ then all people must agree to abide by that outcome no matter where the ballots fall. I do not see appeasing to a minority of people who do not have national ties, today’s world calls it race, is abiding by Lincoln’s words nor by determining the actual will of the people. It is pleasing a small group of people and fulfilling their selfish, intolerant demands.

Something Lincoln would not agree to nor support. Yet when this granting of special rights takes place, the people of God still cannot sin in response. Their opposition must be in line with God’s word, the leading of the HS and furthering the cause of Christ not raising stumbling blocks to salvation.

I am not in favor of federal lone federal judges determining the will of the people when the majority of states had the majority of their people vote in favor of their marriage definitions and same-sex bans. The will of the will of the people is not defined by the selfish minority nor by single judges who may have a personal bias, like the judge who overturned Cal. prop 8. Nor do I think that the Supreme Court should have the final word on this issue for their personal bias obviously influences their thinking.

If we want the will of the people then we should have a national vote on the definition of marriage and same-sex entry into that institution. We need to stop this embarrassment of having a minority of people bludgeon the majority and determine the will of the people via bullying, abuse, threats, lawsuits and so on. We also need to stop the embarrassment where lone or small groups of judges determine the will of the people by ignoring the will of the people who have made their will known in their states’ vote.

Much To Talk About- 93

#1. Perceived Persecutionhttp://christiannews.net/2015/01/29/prosecutor-wont-drop-case-against-christian-ticketed-for-posting-scripture-sign-on-vehicle/

As previously reported, for nearly the past two years up until last August, Zapata, a Columbian-born Christian who lives just outside the town of Englewood, has posted Scripture and other messages on his vehicle as a means to witness to the public about Christ.

“Two years ago, the Lord said to me, ‘Start praying. Go out into the streets and go preach the gospel. Put signs on your car. Tell everybody that I’m coming soon,’” he recalled.

When people are faced with what they consider to be religious persecution there are biblical teachings that instruct us in how to handle it. First, make sure it is actual persecution and that you are not breaking the law or violating someone’s privacy.  By privacy, I mean if they have told you they are not interested then back off and do not force your beliefs upon them.

Second, there is there matter of ‘turning the other cheek’. This may seem like you are giving unbelievers free shots at you but God will use that obedience for his will. We must be willing to take the pain when called upon to do so. If you need an example of turning the other cheek when violently treated, then turn to the example of Christ after he was arrested or the example of Stephen as he was martyred.
Third, use common sense. Sometimes opposition to religious activities are not persecution but a personal preference on the part of those behind the opposition. For example, churches do not need or have to use schools for their services. There are plenty of empty warehouse space available in some cities which can be considered an option. Look for alternative venues before wasting money in useless court battles that only raise stumbling blocks in unbelievers.
Then finally, compare real religious persecution with what many westerners perceive to be persecution. here are a few inks to give you an idea of what I mean:
There are other examples at that Christian News website. remember the Bible tells us ‘a soft answer turneth away wrath.’
#2. God Speaks Through Different Peoplehttps://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/just-stop/

Russell Wilson has an opinion about God and football so naturally the HuffPo wants to know what you think…

I think if you’re getting your theology from a football player or a journalist or an actor or your podiatrist you should just quit it.

Please, for the love of God, just stop it.

He can and will use the right podiatrist or journalist to teach us something, the trick is for us to use discernment and make sure those people are actually being used by God. God does not limit himself to theologians, pastors or missionaries because a lot of them do not listen to God and preach their own ideas. When God’s full-time people are dropping the ball, others need to step up and fill the void.

Jesus pointed out that if the people were silent on his triumphant entry then the rocks would sing out. If God will use rocks, he will use the least of people to get his message to the masses. Their trick for those people is to listen and get it right so the population is not deprived of what God wants them to hear. The trouble with people like Jim West, theologians, pastors and missionaries, is that they think they get to edit what God says and put their own spin to his words.

#3. Don’t Use Twitterhttps://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/twitter-theology-that-makes-me-sigh-63/

Highly visible superstar theologians ought to be better communicators than that.

Twitter does not allow enough characters to present a fully thought out message to others. Discernment applies to communication and good use of our communicative tools is vital for getting people to listen to the gospel.  Using Twitter because we can or it is cool isn’t listening to God nor using good discernment. It is okay to NOT use Twitter for religious communication.

Christians do not need to leap on the social messaging bandwagons to get their message across. Usually it is better to meet people’s needs in person and show them that you actually care instead of posting a message anonymously for a generic crowd to read. There are many ways to plant the seeds for the gospel–pay someone’s food bill, utility bills, drive them to where they are going, paint their house or help with work around the house. You do not always have to preach a message to plant a seed. Sometimes showing that you care goes further.

#4. American Sniper, Fox and the Believerhttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2015/01/fox-news-american-sniper-jesus-and-well-i-cant-even/

I don’t like picking on Fox News when they talk religion of any sort, including Christianity. It’s too easy and it gets boring.

But I can’t help myself here.

According to the Fox News website, Michael Moore–who really hates this movie, I mean really, really hates it–tweeted about how inconsistent this movie is for Christian faith–hardly a sign of Moore’s Paul-like blinding light conversion, but more a dig.

Fox News took the bait. Correspondent Todd Starnes, after telling us twice that he’s “no theologian,” nevertheless makes a rather hefty theological claim in response to Moore: Jesus would be saying “well done thou good and faithful servant” to snipers plucking off Muslims, thus sending them to hell where they belong.

The good thing about living overseas in a non-western country is that I do not have to put up with western news programs or movies. I have not seen the movie but I have to call into question Mr. Moore’s assessment of the Christian faith. Peter owned a sword and used it and when the people of Israel demanded a king God told Samuel that a king would call their men to serve in the army (slight paraphrase) and God did not condemn nor forbid that service in that discussion with Samuel and the people


Service in the military is not the issue but HOW one serves is. Is one following biblical teaching with humility or not? Is one following the lead of his fellow non-believing soldiers or following the lead of the HS? We need to be careful in our judgment of our fellow believer’s employment for we may not be privy to all of their communication with God and God may have led them to serve in the military.

We can look at their attitudes to see if they are following God’s ways or not and reprove them if they are not or encourage them if they are. We need to keep believing people in tune with God’s ways so that they do not become lost and then destroyed by evil. I am not going to say if the American Sniper was Christian or not for that is not my place, but what is my place and what I am going to say is that believers must treat him and all others like God would want and leads.

We do not mistreat others simply because they do not view the military or its personnel in the same light as we do. I am non-military but I know that my calling is not the same as another person’s thus I need to treat them the right way that reflects well on Christ and the Bible. I do not have the right to force my calling upon others nor treat them in an unbiblical manner. This goes for every believer.

#5. Genocide or Punishment?http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2015/01/the-canaanites-werent-the-worst-sinners-ever-engaging-copan-and-flannagan-on-canaanite-extermination/

First, I am very glad to see the authors make a point that needs to be made over and over again, namely describing the biblical accounts of the Canaanite extermination as “hagiographic hyperbole” (a term borrowed from another philosopher, Nicolas Wolterstorff).

You will have to read the article for context as I am not really speaking about that quote here. I am speaking about the whole topic of God’s commands to the Israelites which had them kill those who did not believe in God or follow his ways. People who write the way those authors write do not understand God or his ways.  They do not understand that God is free to punish his creation as he sees fit and he is free to use whatever method fits the message that comes with that punishment.
These people do not see any command by God to his people to go and do thou likewise so we must be careful in how we apply these texts to our Christian lives and teaching of others. The same people also ignore the grave and great amounts of sin committed by those subject to this type of punishment. They are looking at the episodes with a jaundiced eye, even to the point of disagreeing with God on the nature of sin as if they have a right to challenge God on that determination. Nor do they look closely at God’s patient’s with these people and the numerous chances he gave them to repent or change their ways.
We know that the Canaanites had a biblical presence throughout their history even though God’s people were not in the land at the time or a glimmer in Abraham’s eye because the Bible talks about Melchizedek  was king of Salem before Israel arrived
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him,
God has not left sinful people without a messenger thus their decision to disobey God is known to him and probably not to us.
Both internal literary patterns as well as external parallel evidence indicate quite clearly that we should not expect literal historical accounts from the biblical writers–at least when they recount their military exploits.
This bothers me for it is saying that God had his biblical writers lie and did nothing about it nor changed their words to the truth at a later date.  Jesus certainly did not disavow what the OT writers wrote so we know that they wrote the truth about their military campaigns. Why would God insert something into the Bible that was not true for such an insertion would only discredit him and undermine his authority. It would also encourage people to sin and not warn them of the results of their sinful behavior, something God wants stopped.
Punishment is not genocide. God punishes not murders for murder is a sin. Boko Haram murders not justly punishes. To say that God committed genocide and murder makes God out to be a worst sinner than satan and such people need to get their facts straight, it is satan who deceives people and keeps them deceived  and sinful until God terminates their earthly existence in spite of the hundreds of evangelists out there preaching the gospel message.
Put the blame where the blame where the blame lies and do not falsely accuse God for things he did not do.
#6. Has West Silenced Evans?http://rachelheldevans.com/
West has been hitting her pretty hard on his website and she has not published anything in a week. I am sure she is taking time off but the coincidence is telling. I wouldn’t be sad if both of them went silent but sadly there are far too many false teachers out there for 2 to make a difference.

Cosmos- 5 Odds & Ends

#1. Light Postscript

There is a variety of subjects that I found in the next chapter but first I would like to add a postscript to yesterday’s post on ‘light’ if I may.  So many atheists and unbelievers always point out that light was created before the sun. Their belief is that light is not a separate entity from the sun or similar stars found throughout the universe. They feel that light comes from the sun alone but as we see in Genesis, light is a separate entity from the sun was created to be one source of light.

The following does not apply to God for he can conceive of anything whether it exists or not, an ability we humans do not  possess. We need an example to put thoughts into our heads, for example flying. No one would have consider the idea of man being able to fly if they had not seen the birds do it. If there were no birds, man would not build an airplane because there would be no concept of flight and no example to build from.

The same with light. If there was no light, we would not build, let’s say, a flashlight and let it sit there waiting to find some concept to marry it to.  We needed the example of the sun to build upon to meet our daily light needs’. In other words, we needed to know the concept of light and the concept of a source to refine the ideas to fit those daily needs.

We would not be able to build headlights for vehicles if we did not have the concept that light needed a source mechanism. God could easily have created the sun on the first day but he didn’t and his reasons why seem to be hidden at this time. Maybe he wanted to give us the instruction that light is not dependent upon solar stars and can be captured and used in other sources.

Then we can ask, why are there so many stars similar to the sun throughout the universe? The answer is simple. God is using those stars to not only to give us peace of mind. By this I mean, wouldn’t the fears and other emotions of people go to the extreme if all they saw in the night sky was complete blackness? Then, those fiery stars light up the universe so we can see the glory of God.  How would we see the validity of the biblical verse speaking on this topic if we could not see what God did at creation?

God wasn’t wasting his time nor being redundant in his work when he placed a multitude of suns in other galaxies. He wanted the faith of people to be shored up by his work so he let us see it far more easily than if he left the universe dark.

#2. Creation of Atoms

Where do these atoms come from? Except for hydrogen, they are all made in stars. (pg. 228)

Unverifiable and ridiculous but what can you expect from those who will accept any absurd idea as long as it does not contain God.  Do I think molecules are made in the stars? Of course not because it wouldn’t make any sense for them to be made in stellar bodies who have no production capacity even to make their own molecules. To say that they were present in the aftermath of the Big Bang implies that the elements were in existence prior to the formation of stars thus they were not made in stars but somewhere else.

Stars did not come out whole after the supposed Big Bang so where did they get these molecules to pass around the universe in a random offering? They had to gather them from somewhere thus ruining the star manufacturing theory.

#3. Made of Atoms

I am made of atoms…The table is made of atoms…(pg.231)

I heard this argument long before Sagan became famous. It is not new and it is a farce for what it does is tell everyone that we really do not exist and we are not responsible for our decisions and behavior. This thinking probably laid the foundation for today’s refusal to take responsibility for one’s decision that permeates much of society and has been developed over the decades.

To say that we are only made of atoms denies God’s creative work and places our origins outside the truth and biblical descriptions. When you read this page in the book, you get the feeling of how absurd and the question rises, how can intelligent people even consider accepting this way of thinking? Basically this idea removes us from the realm of humanity and makes us  an inanimate object that is either programmable or easy to manipulate because we have no independent thought, no will or desires and so on.

I really do not want to get into a discussion on electrons, neutrons, quarks, and so on or if they actually exist because that isn’t the point of this section. The point is secular man is trying to find ways to be not responsible for their sins and hope to be granted another way to heaven going around Jesus and not following him.

#4. The Sun-

Stars and their accompanying planets are born in the gravitational collapse of a cloud of interstellar gas and dust. The collision of the gas molecules in the interior of the cloud heats it, eventually to the point where hydrogen begins to fuse into helium…Suffering alternate absorption and emissions by the overlapping matter, gradually working its way toward the surface of the star, losing energy at every step, the photon’s epic journey takes a million years until, as visible light, it reaches the surface and is radiated to space. (pg. 237)

Again, an absurd theory based upon unverifiable subjective opinion but still proves that secularists are deceived and will accept any idea as long as God is out of the picture. The evolutionist does not understand what they are looking at and feel compelled to use any explanation, no matter how ridiculous, just so they have an explanation to work from that doesn’t contain the truth.

Even though calculations may help astronomers figure out the length of time it would take for such photons to reach the surface, there is no way to know if their theory is the correct method God put into the sun and other stars. Their calculations are based upon their idea of how things work, not on how they actually do work. This is about as far as I can take this because it gets into a field called neutrino astronomy, a field I am unfamiliar with but here are a couple of links to introduce you to them:




I, for one, think the scientists are making this all up and am very skeptical because it is very difficult to know when they are actually telling the truth and when they are creating something out of an over-active imagination. One of the things I have learned over the years with my involvement with scientists is that they need smaller and smaller particles to search for and follow or they will not be able to ‘do science’.   By that I mean, that scientists are not content with coming to the end of the line in their work and invent sub- microscopic entities to pursue and continue their ‘research.’

I cannot believe half of the things scientist claim exists or works in the manner they propose. I think they are making most of it up.

#5. Origin of Life

The origin and evolution of life are connected in the most intimate way with the origin and evolution of the stars. First: The very matter of which we are composed, the atoms that make life possible, were generated long ago and far away in giant red stars. (pg. 244)

First, the presence of similar matter does not infer that one form begat another. It tells us that God used the same material for Earth as he did for all other planets and stars. Then since we are made of the dust of the Earth, it stands to reason that we would possess the same molecules in our body as all planets have in their make-up.

It is a big stretch to assume some connection other than God made all things from the same materials.

Second: The existence of certain varieties of heavy atoms on Earth suggests that there was a nearby supernova explosion shortly before the solar system formed. (pg. 244)

No it doesn’t. It suggest that the Earth possesses heavy atoms, nothing else. If one wants there to be a supernova then one is reading into the presence of the atoms and not exegeting the truth from their presence. Heavy atoms alone do not provide evidence for a supernova for there could be a number of reasons for their presence on Earth that have nothing to do with an exploding star.  Also, there is nothing that connects heavy atoms to supernovas and even if there was that does not mean one took place prior to the formation of the solar system.

It just means that God placed the same material everywhere. I will leave the two further points for you to read and think on

#6. By Accident??

A star destroys itself thousands of light years away and produces cosmic rays that spiral through the Milky Way Galaxy for millions of years until, quite by accident, some of them strike the Earth and our hereditary material. (pg. 245)

That is so absurd that it is not worth making a comment upon. We are the product of an interstellar suicide?? It just boggles the mind at how ridiculous evolutionists go to avoid the truth.

#7. No Supernovas

Unhappily, no supernova explosions have been observed in our galaxy since the invention of the telescope, and astronomers have been chafing at the bit for some centuries. (pg. 247)

I even doubt that early astronomers observed one. Sagan talks about an early Chinese sighting in 1054 but how do we know that they just did not see a star move into that position and then move on, after all aren’t stars and galaxies moving? But then do we really want one happening in this galaxy?  Like I said, I am skeptical of almost everything secular scientists and astronomers say simply because they are deceived and they do not abide by God’s moral standard. They are free to make things up as they go since they do not believe God exists and his moral standard is not so moral.

We do need to remember that scientists and astronomers are not immune from being deceived. 2 Tim. 3 informs us of this

But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (v. 13 NASB)

This verse needs to be kept in mind when believers hear what secular scientists say in order to not be deceived themselves. We know that secular experts advocate alternatives to the truth thus their ideas need to be filtered with a lot of suspicion and double-checking. It is not wrong to be skeptical of secular humans words and conclusions. They are not God’s messengers to the Christian or the church.

The Ancient World & Cranes

And no, I am not talking about the bird. Many people wonder how the ancient people built such large buildings when there were supposedly no large construction workhorses like a crane to help them. In the years I have been doing research into archaeology, etc., I had not come across one story about ancient cranes and their contribution to the ancient construction industry.

It wasn’t till about a month ago that I came across a small book, I believe it is called a Primer of the Ancient World (but I have to double-check), which mentioned that the ancient Greeks had industrial cranes to help them in their large construction work. My interest piqued I started to investigate a little bit and sure enough, the ancient Greeks and Romans had construction crane sat their disposal. Here are some links to a few articles to help your own research and see that what is said about the ancient world is not always close to the truth.

#1. http://www.snipview.com/q/Ancient%20crane

The first construction cranes were invented by the Ancient Greeks and were powered by men or beasts of burden, such as donkeys. These cranes were used for the construction of tall buildings. Larger cranes were later developed, employing the use of human treadwheels, permitting the lifting of heavier weights. In the High Middle Ages, harbour cranes were introduced to load and unload ships and assist with their construction – some were built into stone towers for extra strength and stability. The earliest cranes were constructed from wood, but cast iron and steel took over with the coming of the Industrial Revolution.

For many centuries, power was supplied by the physical exertion of men or animals, although hoists in watermills and windmills could be driven by the harnessed natural power. The first ‘mechanical’ power was provided by steam engines, the earliest steam crane being introduced in the 18th or 19th century, with many remaining in use well into the late 20th century. Modern cranes usually use internal combustion engines or electric motors and hydraulic systems to provide a much greater lifting capability than was previously possible, although manual cranes are still utilized where the provision of power would be uneconomic.

#2. http://ezinearticles.com/?The-History-of-Cranes—Ancient-Times-to-the-Modern-Day&id=4413491

In ancient Greece, the crane was used widely used. This has been substantiated by the fact that many Greek temples have stones with holes that give the impression that they were placed with the assistance of a lifting device. The development of the crane is believed to have replaced the older ramp technology that had previously been used to create large structures (such as the Pyramids in Egypt). It was however the use of the winch and pulley system that meant that the crane replaced the ramp and became far more mobile.

It was the Romans however that invested a great deal of time and energy into the crane. The Romans were renowned for their impressive construction efforts from the aqueducts of the Mediterranean to the magnificent Colosseum. The Romans developed a number of different crane varieties from the trispastos, a mobile and versatile crane to the treadmill crane, a more permanent structure capable of lifting extremely heavy weights long distances. As some roman structures have stone blocks of 100 tons and more, it is clear that the abilities of roman crane designers were immense.

#3. http://www.klclutch.com/cranes/a-tale-of-two-ancient-civilizations-and-the-cranes-that-built-them/

Necessity is the mother of all innovation—and you won’t find a more urgent group of inventors than those under threat of being smote from above. For whatever reasons, the Ancient Greeks felt compelled to build huge temples to their gods, and traditional methods like ramps for moving and lifting the enormous building stones of massive monuments like the Parthenon just weren’t going to get the jobs done. Meet the crane: at first a simple winch and pulley system, and later a compound pulley system credited to Aristotle.

Today, you can see the difference in the way temples were built in different time periods. Pre-cranes, building blocks actually tended to be much larger, because so much effort was required to push each one up a ramp that it was less labor-intensive to use bigger and fewer blocks. Post-cranes, blocks were smaller, but stacked higher, in more complicated and advanced structures, and more quickly.

#4. http://greaterancestors.com/ancient-greek-cranes/

Archaeologists assume that cranes were used in Greece since 900 BC (although there is no direct proof). After a recent discovery of a 2.3 ton and 2900 years old sarcophagus in Corinth an archaeologist (Guy Sanders) said: “To lower the sarcophagus into place in a controlled movement … requires some kind of temporary superstructure over the grounds so they can control the vertical movement of the stone”.

#5. http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/03/history-of-human-powered-cranes.html

The most common tower crane used in construction today has a lifting capacity of some 12 to 20 tonnes. For quite a few construction projects in ancient history, this type of crane would be completely inadequate.

The majority of stones that make up the almost 140 discovered Egyptian pyramids have a weight of “only” 2 to 3 tonnes each, but all of these structures (built between 2750 and 1500 BC) also hold stone blocks weighing 50 tonnes, sometimes more. The temple of Amon-Ra at Karnak contains a labyrinth of 134 columns, standing 23 metres (75 feet) tall and supporting crossbeams weighing 60 to 70 tonnes each. The 18 capital blocks of Trajan’s column in Rome weigh more than 53 tonnes and they were lifted to a height of 34 metres (111 feet). The Roman Jupiter temple in Baalbek contains stone blocks weighing over 100 tonnes, raised to a height of 19 metres (62 feet). Today, to lift a weight of 50 to 100 tonnes to these heights, you need a crane like this.

Occasionally, our forefathers lifted even heavier stones. The gravestone of Theoderic the Great in Ravenna (around 520 AD) is a 275 tonne stone block that was lifted to a height of 10 metres. The temple dedicated to Pharaoh Khafre in Egypt is made up of monolithic blocks weighing up to 425 tonnes. The largest Egyptian obelisk weighed more than 500 tons and stands more than 30 metres tall, while the largest obelisk in the Kingdom of Axum in Ethiopia (4th century AD), raised up to a similar height, weighed 520 tonnes. The Colossi of Memnon, two statues of 700 tonnes each, were erected to a height of 18 metres and the walls in the Roman Baalbek temple complex (1st century BC) contain almost 30 monoliths weighing 300 to 750 tons each.

Only the most powerful contemporary cranes could handle stones of this weight (see the picture on the left, specifications here).

Raising construction materials to impressive heights seemed to be no problem either. The Alexandria lighthouse (3rd century BC) stood more than 76 metres (250 feet) tall. The Egyptian pyramids rise up to 147 metres. During the Middle Ages some 80 large cathedrals and around 500 large churches were built with a height of up to 160 metres – out of reach for all but the most recent top model crawler cranes (picture above, right).

#6. http://www.worldwideflood.org/ark/technology/cranes_and_lifting.htm

Noah’s Ark was a large construction project. While none of the timbers were likely to top the mass of the Egyptian obelisk now standing in the Vatican, Noah must have used something to raise loads. Shifting large keel logs into position, raising structural timber frames and handling long lengths of planking all require some sort of lifting apparatus. Since rope, wooden pulleys and lifting frames are all “low tech” ancient technologies, there is no lifting operation that is technically inconceivable as far as lumps of wood are concerned.

The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Mayans and others were all fascinated with lifting heavy objects, usually stone. Theories abound on how the Egyptians accomplished it. Even as recently as 1586, simply lifting an Egyptian stone obelisk was considered an engineering feat. That’s strange.

#7. http://greaterancestors.com/ancient-roman-cranes/

Giant cranes were employed in construction just as cranes are used today.

“In a treadwheel crane, people walk on the inside of a large wheel (think of a hamster wheel) and the weight of their bodies provides the lifting force. Treadwheel cranes have been used in England since Roman times.

An earlier version of this note suggested that the crane had no brake and relied on the walkers’ weight to keep the load from falling. [H] replies: “I believe this is not quite right, that it actually does have brakes on the wheels but that they failed because the load was too heavy and the mechanism broke. The brakes are referred to as “stoppers” and are probably like the ratchet mechanism in a clock, with the stopper being the pawl. On page 11 [after the accident], Fister says ‘That load wer too much for that weal … it wer the stoppers coming luce and the weal took charge.’


Cosmos-4 Light

Maybe I should say Light & Einstein as that is who Sagan is referencing and his theory of relativity. But before I get to the quote to be discussed, allow me to preface my remarks with the following fact.  The majority of theoretical physics is based upon an event that never took place.  Its calculations, its supposed laws and so on are all figured to adhere to an origin by random events.

Then I have a difficulty accepting the term ‘natural law’ as it implies that galaxies, planets, etc., have the ability to make a choice to violate those rules that govern their behavior.They don’t obviously, so we probably need to describe what we observe in a different light as God established everything and set their patterns according to how he wanted them to work. I decided to split the passage i am addressing into parts for better clarity

#1. Light (reflected or emitted) from an object travels at the same velocity whether the object is moving or stationary: Thous shalt not add thy speed to the speed of light. (pg. 214)

I tend to disagree with this sentiment because in reality, we cannot measure the speed of light from natural sources.  By natural sources I mean the sun, stars, etc., because they have emitted a constant light since creation. With no breaks, it is impossible to measure how fast natural light travels. I also disagree with it because the first question that comes to mind is- why not?

What makes light so special that you cannot add more speed to it? it doesn’t have an engine that will blow out nor any other natural fallibility that would breakdown so why can’t light go faster than the scientists have claimed? For me I think it is possible for light to travel faster than secularists say simply because there is nothing stopping light or anything from adding more velocity to its speed. if there is who capped it and how do they have the authority to do so?

Now I am not being a crank here, I am just questioning Einstein’s and others conclusions on light. Something I am allowed to do. And you can’t through the experiment argument after me for all those experiments tell me is that human man has been incapable of inventing or discovering a mechanism that can add speed to light’s movement.

#2. Also, no material object may move faster than light.: Thou shalt not travel at or beyond the speed of light. (pg. 214)

Who says and who died and made them the boss of travel speed? Just because humans have not invented any material objects that cannot travel faster than the speed of light doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist or can’t be invented. This restrictive thinking seems at odds with the original purpose of science. But then why would we need any material object to travel faster than the speed of light? (I can hear the men escaping their nagging wife jokes now)

Humans really do not have the final say in this issue.

#3. Nothing in physics prevents you from traveling as close to the speed of light as you like; 99.9 percent of the speed of light would be just fine. But no matter how hard you try, you can never gain that last decimal point.  (pg. 214)

Who says physics has the last word on this topic?  There is also nothing in physics which stops you from surpassing the speed of light. It is not the policemen of space travel. Science is so full of itself that it thinks it is the only authority or employment field with the final say on any matter. It isn’t but they like to think they are. Science really has no say in what man can or cannot do, it is a mere tool to help the human to achieve his goal.

#4. For the world to be logically consistent, there must be a speed limit. (pg.214-5)

Why? I am sure Sagan meant to say the word ‘cap’ for the word ‘limit’ implies that it is possible to go faster than the posted speed. The word ‘cap’ implies there is no possibility of going faster. As i told my students, terminology is very important when communicating ideas to others. Then we need to ask ‘why must there be a speed limit?’  Why should we not be able to travel faster than the speed of light if we want to? Higher speeds do NOT make the world to be logically inconsistent.

But of course scientists have this track record of being overly cautious. When the first cars were invented, they thought that terrible things would take place if the vehicle moved faster than 5 m.p.h. There is nothing wrong with objects flying faster than the speed of light, it just means that the artificial scientific limit is in error and unrealistic.

And again, we need to ask who died and left scientists in charge of the universe and its speed?

#5. Otherwise, you could get to any speed you wanted by adding velocities on a moving platform? (pg. 215)

So?  What is wrong with that? We do it all the time with cars, trucks, boats, planes and even rocket ships.  What do scientists think will happen if someone goes faster than the speed of light? Obviously we cannot know that for no one has invented any object that can do it but should we let the fears of scientists stop our progress?

This whole idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light has no real foundation. It is an argument based upon silence or the human lack of ability not something that can be demonstrated. This is the thing though. A group of people have self-appointed themselves as final arbitrators of what can or cannot be done yet possess no real authority that permits them to place these restrictions upon others.

Because most of secular science, not just physics, works from the foundation of a non-existent event, that field cannot produce accurate estimations of what can or cannot be done. It is all secular human thinking, something the secular science uses as a reason to reject the Bible. Their ideas, theories and so on, are as unverifiable as they claim a supernatural God and creation are but for them it is worse because their thinking is not based in the truth or from actual fact.

Stephen Hawkins has been working on a theory that if complete would mean that God is not necessary but his problem is, the theory is not enough to prove that God did not exist or create. He can point to any particle or sub-particle that he wants and give it any number of duties and qualities he desires but that act would not verify any theory he applies that creation too. Why? Because not one of the particles and sub-particles identified today were captured doing the humanly assigned duties credited to them.

No one has even recorded one item in the universe doing what they have claimed it has done in the past. I.E. no one has observed and recorded gravity pulling rocks together and creating a planet or star, then placing it into a very sophisticated and orderly orbit around another heavenly body. In other words, they can never verify their ideas and they demand physical evidence before they will accept supernatural alternatives.

They do not have any physical evidence to prove their theories thus they cannot reject Genesis 1 on that basis. Genesis one is probably as scientific as their secular alternatives because of this lack of physical evidence supporting those different theories.

Over the years, I have begun to consider that Einstein was very wrong in his thinking, just like I consider Hawkins and others to be wrong. it goes back to the foundation of their work. They are not building upon a true event but one conjured up by someone’s over-active imagination.

When we hear scientific experts pontificate on matters pertaining to the universe or origins we need to keep this fact in mind. What foundation are they building upon? The truth or a false event? If it isn’t the truth, and evolution and the big bang are fictitious events, then dismiss what they say and go make your own calculations, do your own research based upon the truth, the Bible for you will get better results.

The Ancient World & Glass Making

Since publishing a bit about the telescopic like piece of glass found by S. Martinos on Thera, I became curious as to how extensive glass making was in the ancient world. Turns out that their end product could rival modern glass makers’ productions. Here are some links and blurbs on ancient glass making.

#1. http://realscience.breckschool.org/upper/fruen/files/Enrichmentarticles/files/AncientGlass/AncientGlass.html

Glassmaking originated in the Syro-Palestine area around the third millennium BC and was developed in Egypt in 1500 BC. The Phoenicians became the greatest glassmakers and exporters of the ancient world. This was because of the rich deposits of silica-based sand, which contained a substantial amount of lime, found along the coast of Lebanon (James 464 and Fleming 138).

Glass was rare. It was used in artistic pieces and given the same status as semi-precious stones by artisans. Beautiful bright red and yellow opaque glass and cobalt-blue glass ingots were used as beads for jewelry and in figurines and decorative vessels like the ones shown to the right.

Ancient people probably discovered the technique for making glass when firing faience. Faience is a type of ceramic pottery glazed with a sodium alkaline flux. If the glaze was mixed with the crushed silicon clay before firing, a glassy substance would have been produced in the body of the clay (Bowman 33).

Ancient glass vessels were produced in molds. The earliest datable example of molded glass was found in the tomb of Thutmose III’s three foreign wives. The tomb yielded a molded glass vessel and a large number of glass beads and inlays, as well as two more unusual vitreous vessels. This has led some archaeologists to speculate that glassmaking came to Egypt from the Syro-Palestine area during the reign of Thutmose III (Lilyquist 194).

#2. http://www.touregypt.net/historicalessays/lifeinEgypt12.htm

There is still some doubt as to when and where glass was invented. The tradition passed on by Pliny locates the event on the Phoenician coast, in modem Lebanon, where there later grew one of the most important glass-making centers.

In Egypt, the first glass we know of, as a component of faience ware, dates from as far back as the Neolithic Badarian culture at the turn of the 5th and 4th millennia BC. Glass is produced from a mixture of silica-sand, lime and soda, colored with the copper ore malachite and fused at a high temperature.

In the oldest Egyptian faience ware a skin of this substance was applied to a core made of silica-sand and clay, or of the stone steatite. This was used at first only for beads, but later on for amulets, shawabtis (the little figurines of the attendants of the deceased), other figures and inlays (shapes inserted into the sides of vessels, wooden objects, or into plaster). Particularly in the Middle and New Kingdoms a faience glaze was often applied to complete vessels and statuettes.

It is not surprising that the ancient authorities thought of Phoenicia as the birthplace of glass, for theSyro-Palestine region did indeed become a major center of glass production in antiquity, along with Egypt. However, glass seems actually to have been “discovered” not in Phoenicia, but in Mesopotamia. Archaeological researchnow places the first evidence of true glass there at around 2500 B.C. At first it was used for beads, seals, and architectural decoration. Some 1,000 years elapsed before glass vessels are known to have been produced. Vessels of glass quickly became widespread in the second half of the second millennium B.C. They were popular not only in Mesopotamia but also in Egypt and the Aegean. The earliest vessels were core-formed. Opaque, dark glass in its molten state was wound around a clay core attached to a metal rod. The skin of hot glass was fashioned with tools in order to shape its external features. Lighter colored strands of hot glass were then trailed on the surface and often “dragged” to produce festoon patterns. The pot surface wasmarvered (that is, rolled on a smooth, flat surface to produce a level finish). Finally, it was cooled slowly before the clay core was scraped out of the hardened vessel. This glassware typically imitated forms originally established for ceramic, metal, and stone vessels .Somewhat later, the molding technique was developed, whereby glass chips or molten glass were packed or forced into a mold and then fused. After a molded vessel was annealed (cooled slowly in a special chamber of the glass furnace), it was often ground and polished in order to refine the rim and any other rough edges. One typical shape for molded vessels of the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods (c. 150 -50 B.C.) was the so-called pillar-molded bowl. Here exterior ribs radiate up from the base, stopping abruptly near the rim to allow a smooth margin around the circumference. This type is ubiquitous; and it attests to the free and rapid exchange of ideas in glass-making throughout the Greater Mediterranean sphere. Fragmentary examples in the collections of the Kelsey Museum range from Seleucia, to Karanis, to Puteoli. The site of Tel Anafa in Israel (recently excavated jointly by the Universities of Michigan and Missouri) has provided critical information on the chronological limits of these bowls within the Roman period.

#4. http://www.historyofglass.com/glass-invention/ancient-glass/

The name of man who discovered glass is lost in history records. No matter who did it and how it happened, there is evidence which suggests that glass was already in use as far back as the 14th century BC.

Beside Phoenicians, ancient Egyptians also knew the secrets of glass production and they used glass like materials long before the production of glass itself. Little glass beads, which people used for necklaces was the first glass.

Decorative glass was very difficult to produce and was quite rare. In ancient time glass was made from sand quartz and the ancients were using some very complex chemistry to both create and color the glass. They simply whetted beads, figures or bottles of any shape since they couldn’t blow spherical forms…

The technique of core forming was developed in both Egypt and Mesopotamia in about 1500BC. This new method by which glass vessels were produced in variety of shapes was important breakthrough in glass making and remained in use for over a thousand years.

#5. http://artgallery.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Coll_An_ancient_glass.pdf

Although the core-forming technique was the first process
to be used for the manufacture of glass vessels, several
casting techniques followed shortly thereafter, with early ex-
amples from the Near East and Egypt dating to the fifteenth
 Despite the early date of their invention, casting
techniques received only limited use until the Hellenistic
period, with the explosive expansion of demand for luxury
goods centered around the royal courts of the new king-
doms founded by the successors of Alexander the Great.
The rise of cast glass to a position of greater prominence
beginning in the third century paralleled the dwindling
popularity of the core-forming technique, which was obso-
lete by the early first century

I did not realize at first that, irridescence proves nothing. I have some glass that was dug up in Germany and in the states, from within closed glass factories, dug-up in the remaining grounds, artifacts,  that displays the best irridescence you could want. Except this glass is less than 100 years old.. Yes it grows on glass in a little as 50 years..

The other thing most do not realize is that, ancient glass techniques are primitive..  What does this mean? There are so-called experts who sell this stuff telling you about lost techniques, it is a bunch of garbage. Primitive techniques are simple, in fact, most glass blowers learn primitive glass blowing equal to or better than what is dug-up..  Primitive means, it is easy, simple to recreate, I.E. primitive,  A child creating art in grade school is primitive..

#7. http://www.world-archaeology.com/features/egypts-ancient-glass.htm

The next evidence came in January 1892, when Petrie was joined by Howard Carter, then on his first visit to Egypt. Petrie’s initial impression of Carter was as ‘a good-natured lad, whose interest is entirely in painting and natural history …and it is of no use to me to work him up as an excavator’ (Petrie Journal). This was to prove premature, as later journal letters make clear. The two men made an excellent team, and Carter’s arrival coincided with the discovery of what were described as ‘amulet factories’, places where faience was produced. His time at the site also encompassed the excavation of other glass and glaze workshops, one of them discovered by local children. The sum total of Petrie and Carter’s finds of glass and faience led Petrie to attempt a reconstruction of the processes of glass and faience production at Amarna. This was the first time such a feat had been attempted. It has been the standard account of ancient glass production ever since.

It is not just glass making that I am interested in but my curiosity is pointing me to see if the ancients could produce telescopic-like glass so that ancient astronomers could see the heavens a lot easier and clearer. Knowing that the ancients were fine craftsmen in other areas of life, i.e. construction, it stands to reason that there would be a few perfectionists in the glass industry who would push themselves to see what they could accomplish.

I could also wonder about ancient eye wear as well but that is not as interesting to me as telescope lenses.  Though now that I mention it


It is unlikely that instruments for visual aid were used in ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome. Although Nero used an emerald to watch the gladiator games, he probably used it for the green color (which blocked out the sunlight). The ancient Chinese are often thought to have developed spectacles 2,000 years ago, but those lenses were only used to protect eyes from evil forces.

That website seems to be a very biased and uninformed piece of work The next link may be more honest but it is based upon very weak evidence


Apparently no visual instruments existed at the time of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans. At least this view is supported by a letter written by a prominent Roman about 100 B.C . in which he stressed his resignation to old age and his complaint that he could no longer read for himself, having instead to rely on his slaves. The Roman tragedian Seneca, born in about 4 B.C., is alleged to have read “all the books in Rome” by peering at them through a glass globe of water to produce magnification. Nero used an emerald held up to his eye while he watched gladiators fight. This is not proof that the Romans had any idea about lenses, since it is likely that Nero used the emerald because of its green color, which filtered the sunlight. Ptolemy mentions the general principle of magnification; but the lenses then available were unsuitable for use in precise magnification.

It is hard to say because so many written records have been lost to time. I do not like or go to wikipedia but they seem to have the best information this time out


But I would not put it past the ancient people to have invented and used eye glasses and like other inventions, they had to be re-discovered in later epochs. Anyways it is food for thought.